There you go again, Nancy. You too have made comments synonymous with ignorance (because of disagreement with your opinion.)
Check the dictionary for opinion versus bias. You're applying a term that your opinion appears to reflect.
Let me remind you.... "so your bias is predicated on intellectual capacity ?" Lets leave those types of comments and Santa Claus out because it's human nature to sling mud. Lets all admit we have the propensity to get personal and leave it at the door.
I've "studied" enough to know that religious people disagree with each other enough that non-religiosos can avoid the mud (if they choose.)
Sure there's two choices - to break or not break the law. Unlike devolution, evolution denotes progress. IMO, it ain't progressive to devolve into sentencing of violence when no violence occurs.
Why do you think we have degrees of crime and the arguably appropriate punishments rendered? Because crime (like MANY aspects of life) isn't black and white.
Embrace what you wish, I address what appears to be disparity in criminal sentencing. Disparity that on the surface appears devolutionary. After the facts start to surface, not so much.
You refuse to address the op's point and instead substitute your own. The subject is crime, serial arson to be specific. The nature of the crime (according to Texas statute) doesn't have to qualify as violent (to persons) in order to render life sentencing.
It's not the nature of the target that determines sentencing unless hate laws dictate otherwise. (Excepting churches in Texas.) Are there currently any hate crimes associated with church arson? Many peeps aren't fans of the "hate crime" laws simply because they want to hate. Then they want to disassociate themselves from crimes that appear to be influenced by hate rhetoric.
What are the most-likely "church" burnings to receive hate-crime status in the future? LGBT churches, minority churches and segments of the population that already have hate crimes established.
Fortunately for you, rich, white peeps and white in general ain't minority status. Haven't you ever heard of the "Moral Majority"? I know it's a myth but so is the so-called minority of religious peoples. Surveys poll religious versus non-religious sympathies with the citizenry. While a majority doesn't necessarily advocate organized religion, as many as 87% of our country has polled as religious in their own right.
Only if you have difficulty separating church and state.
If you advocate violent sentencing where no violence occurs, you might be excluded from most people.
I love it when peeps bring up "most people" as if they assume they're in a majority. Last time I checked, the thread poll is 50/50. While not scientific, it's a reflection of the community that chose to respond.
Congrats weird, you're basically saying you're a minority while suggesting the majority feels the same as you. And all within three paragraphs of each other.
Then try addressing pertinent posts. It's a lot harder than addressing haters. Haven't you seen the recent rhetoric bouncing between political parties? Some of it is disposed of as more hate. But the ramifications are real and the problem has to be addressed.
The solution? Direct comments and or rebuttal toward non-haters.
Another wonderful assumption exposed in this thread. You're not a hater, weird.
Agreed. But your context is short. Our country was founded (in part) so people could worship their own religion, not an imposed, state religion.
There's no Constitutional protections that declare victimless church burnings are to be treated as potential or future murderous scenarios. But the serial nature of arson alone can beget life in prison.
Well, don't take this personal. Organized religion OFTEN judges others as unfit for society because all us heathens are going to HELL. I don't need religion to subscribe to The Golden Rule.
I don't have to subscribe to a story to know how to treat others.
One particular religion, one that happens to be a minority in the face of Islam, Hindu and Buddist says they'll all go to HELL if they don't accept this minority religion. Sorry, that's a crock of crap.
If I want to belong, I have to repent publicly in church. If that's not bad enough, church bean counters will accept or deny my membership based on income and potential (sometimes required) offerings. Nothing to do with repentance.
That comment is made up. All three points so deftly imagined and posted as relevant.
What does the term persecution invoke? Persecution by the church.
Live and let live, a message the church can't ascribe to and still survive. The church will always have demons, the very people who reject organized religion and those who choose other, organized forms.
If you want to stop persecution, start in the church where it's most evident. Maybe non-religious people will treat you and yours like the clubs or associations that don't divide depending on personal belief.
Faith can't conclude others are deluded. That's your religious paradox. You can't seek proof because that in itself challenges your faith. You're dependent on belief, not fact.
So your comment of delusion could be relegated to yourself.
How about the crimes we don't justify by ignoring law and risking incarceration? Sorry, pot has nothing to do with violence or non-violence in church burnings.
Then give logic a try, yourself.
Debating disparity in sentencing laws has nothing to do with hate. Specifically, we're discussing a particular case and the merits of the sentencing rendered. You just pick the stuff that's easy to black n white your issue of choice, not the parameters of the original post.
I invite you to post your own philosophy, in your own philosophical thread. Otherwise, try to maintain the topic.
If you insist on the wide-angle philosophy, try this one on.
How do regard abortion clinic destruction in regard to victimless vs victimized crime? Your opinion may be why you've possibly avoided the comparison.
Farck, I meant to quote this post, not agree with it. There are many faults with this type of thinking. Please allow me to demonstrate with the terms used in the comment.
Arsonists are criminals. The term arsonist doesn't touch on murder, let alone serial murder.
Serial killers are murderer(s) plural. Serial killers follow their motives of who and how they murder, not starting fires when nobody's around.
With exception of victemless arson, or course.
Yep, they're right there... behind bars with child molesters. That's where the similarity starts and ends.
This is my whole argument. Sentence according to statute (which, BTW is subject to change through the legal process.) If we're sentenced according to informal, gut reactions of comparisons to serial murderers and child molesters (especially when these comparisons don't apply) we're fucked.
Is the knee-jerk sentence in question not severe enough? No problem, get the next knee jerk reaction, it might have the severity we're looking for.
IMO, of all the "most helpful" comments in this thread, the comment I quote here is least helpful. No regard to the technicalities of if and when murder applies, let alone serial murder.
We're not arguing the right to burn churches or anything else for that matter, we're arguing whether church burning constitutes violent crime. We've got enough differences of opinion without rewriting the definitions of criminal terms.
Yeah those marination users are the dregs of society, tenderizing meats and giving them zesty flavors with their evil marinades.
Minnesota's Arson statute said:
Rhode Island said:
